- (1.) The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure P-10 dated 20.8.1996 and a further direction to respondents to make a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the Instructions of the Government of Punjab dated 26.5.1992. Jagat Singh alias Jagga Singh son of Sunder Singh (now deceased) was husband of petitioner no.1. Petitioners no. 2 & 3 are the minor sons of the deceased. On 29.9.1983 when petitioner no.1 along with petitioners no. 2 & 3 had gone to see her parents, her husband and Tarlochan Singh, her brother received multiple injuries on their heads at the hands of terrorists (unknown persons). Both were admitted to Civil hospital by Gurnam Singh s/o Santokh Singh and other neighbours and from there, they were shifted to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana on 6.10.1983. Husband of the petitioner expired on 6.10.1983. The FIR was got registered by Gurnam Singh s/o Santokh Singh (Annexure P-1). The petitioner no. 1 sent an application (Annexure P-2) for financial help. Further the claim of financial aid was consigned to the record room by respondent no.2 i.e Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda on the ground that FIR registered on 29.9.1993 under Section 308/452 IPC had been filed on 27.4.1984 for want of investigation and further it was held that the incident had not taken place at the hands of terrorists. Vide letter dated 11.11.1989 (Annexure P-3), petitioner no.1 was informed as under: On the subject cited above the investigation was got done through Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda and according to report FIR No. 291 dated 29.9.1983 under Sections 308/452 IPC was registered at Police Station Rama regarding murder of Jagat Singh alias Jagga Singh s/o Sunder Singh resident of Rama Mandi. The report has been filed on 27.4.1984. From inquiry it is found that it is not a case of terrorists, therefore, your application is being filed.
(2.) Subsequently, petitioner no.1 sent an application for appointment as a trained Dai as she was eligible to be appointed as per the certificate given by the Registrar, Punjab Nurses Registration Council (Annexure P-4). Her affidavit to the effect that her husband had died and she had not remarried were Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively. Her claim for appointment as a trained Dai was pursuant to the instructions dated 28.11.1990 (Annexures P-7, 8 and 9). The petitioner made a representation dated 23.5.1996 which has been declined by respondent no.3 on the report submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to the effect that the case of the petitioner does not pertain to terrorism vide Annexure P-10 informing her that it was not a case of terrorists. The respondents in the written statement have resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the murder of petitioner's husband was not a case of the terrorists' activity. However, the incident and the injuries on the head of the husband of the petitioner, registration of the FIR have been admitted. All efforts were made to trace the accused but they could not be traced and untraced report was filed on 27.4.1984. As per the enquiry report, Annexure R-1 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, it was found that on 29.9.1983 some unknown persons had entered the house and injured her husband Jagat Singh and Tarlochan Singh. It was an ordinary case. In the written statement filed by respondent no.4 i.e Director, Health and Family Welfare, it is denied that the petitioner had made any application for appointment of the post of trained Dai. In the present case, respondents were not disputing that some unknown persons had entered the house of the petitioner no.1 and gave serious injuries on the heads of Jagat Singh and Tarlochan Singh with sharp edged weapons. As a result of the injuries, husband of petitioner no.1 died. During investigation, the accused could not be arrested. It was the duty of the State to protect the lives of innocent citizens and bring the accused to face the trial. In this case, the police filed untraced report and also came to a conclusion that this was not a case of the terrorists and hence the petitioner was not entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the instructions. In the present case, the State has failed in its duty to arrest the accused. In this situation, victims i.e petitioners should have been compensated suitably by the respondent-State. Instead of compensating them, the claim has been rejected on the ground that it was a simple case of murder and was not a terrorist activity. Even if the incident is not to be treated as a terrorist activity, the brutal injuries inflicted on the head of the petitioner's husband which led to his death cannot absolve the responsibility of the State to compensate the victim at this stage. The reference can be made to a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case State of Gujarat vs Hon ble High of Gujarat, 1998 7 SCC 392,[at page 434] the Supreme Court observed as under: 99. In our efforts to look after and protect the human rights of the convict, we cannot forget the victim or his family in case of his death or who is otherwise incapacitated to earn his livelihood because of the criminal act of the convict. The victim is certainly entitled to reparation, restitution and safeguard of his rights. Criminal justice would look hollow if justice is not done to the victim of the crime. The subject of victimology is gaining ground while we are also concerned with the rights of the prisoners and prison reforms. A victim of crime cannot be a forgotten man in the criminal justice system. It is he who has suffered the most. His family is ruined particularly in case of death and other bodily injury. This is apart from the factors like loss of reputation, humiliation, etc. An honour which is lost or life which is snuffed out cannot be recompensed but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace.
(3.) In the above backdrop, reference can now be made to Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which reads as under: "357. ORDER TO PAY COMPENSATION. (1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied - (a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution; (b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court, (c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death; (d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto. (2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. (4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.";;